[OT] EULA and legality

[Richmond]

On 09/12/2012 04:39 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Peter Alcibiades <
> palcibiades-first at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What is needed is an EU case in which either running the thing in a VM or
>> on
>> the wrong sort of hardware was ruled breach of contract and some kind of
>> ruling made.  I don't know of one.  Maybe someone else does.  Lets hear it.
>>
> The closest I can think of is the EU banning smart chips in printer
> cartridges that prevented users from using non-OEM cartridges. I am not
> that familiar with the case but on the surface the whole decision had
> nothing to do with the legality of the manufacture requiring the use of OEM
> parts (car and plane manufactures do it all the time) but was more about
> recycling. Here, it is a post purchase restriction that you use OEM
> cartridges, or else you void the warranty. In the EU if a non-OEM cartridge
> fails (leaks, heads clog) and damages the printer is the manufacturer still
> required to repair the printer in the warranty period?
>
> Peter, I'm just wander what you think the EU make of these Runrev post
> sales restrictions:
>
> 1) Basically you can use LiveCode as an individual on as many computers as
> you own, or you can use it on one computer with multiple users. You may not
> switch between methods of use at any time.
>
> I assume you believe Runrev has no right to tell you how many computers you
> can install LC on and whether or not the computer can be in single or multi
> use.

I have indicated before that I have my legal versions of RunRev (and, 
for some "odd" reason
I don't have any illegal versions) installed on my machines at home, on 
an ancient G3 iMac at my
parents' home, and a slightly less ancient G3 iMac in my school. As 
nobody but nobody that is
ever likely to visit my parents' home, or mine, or my school has a clue 
how to use RR?LC,
or have the passwords to my machines I don't even stop to think: only I 
can get into those machines,
so only I can use the RR/LC installed upon them, and, as I am a mere 
mortal I'd be hard put to be
programming on computers in two or 3 quite distinct places at the same time.

This has got precious little to do with reading a EULA and a lot to do 
with common sense and the practicalities of day-to-day life.

>
> 2) Basically LiveCode has certain limits built in, such as you can't use a
> script to modify another script by more than 10 lines.

Built-in limits are built-in limits and as such have nothing to do with 
legality, morality or honesty;
that is how the software IS.

>
> I assume you believe Runrev has no right to limit what you do with the code
> you write. Now I know that Runrev will quite happily negotiate a change in
> those limits if your particular circumstance warrants it, but that is still
> a negotiated settlement and would be a limit set by Runrev, what you are
> suggesting is in the EU Runrev has no right to include that 10 line limit.

Where did Peter suggest that? Must have missed it.

Surely, a piece of software is what it is, and legislating bodies cannot 
tell a programmer
what capabilities s/he may or may not build into it?

As far as I can see the 10 line limit is a decision taken by the people 
who make Livecode, just
as a bicycle maker decides that all his bikes should be painted black - 
and if I come along
and demand a pink bike the maker is quite entitled to say "Boo" to me.

There is an important distinction between what a thing is capable of, 
and how a customer uses the thing.

A bicycle cannot be used to brew coffee, and I am absolutely sure that 
anybody claiming that the
fact that their bike cannot be used as a coffee-maker is in some way 
"unfair" would be laughed out of court.

If I turn my bike upside down and use the back wheel as part of a 
home-made electrical generator
that should be up to me, and a EULA that states that I cannot do that 
seems a bit out of place.